Table 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation. ...............................................................

2
Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units................................................... 3
Table 3: Validation of gasification model based on the proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oil, under
given input and operating conditions [34]. ...................................................................................................... 4
Table 4: Sensitivity analysis of operating conditions of WGS and CO2SEP on stoichiometric ratio of
reactants in the methanol synthesis reactor. .................................................................................................... 5
Table 5: Data extracted from simulation and classification of heat utilisation and consumption for heat
integration analysis. (a) ASU configuration. (b) Electrolyser configuration................................................... 6
Table 6: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration............. 7
Table 7: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with electrolyser configuration. . 8
Table 8: (a) Proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oils from various sources. (b) Comparison of
performance analysis of once-through, 1350 MW BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration, between
poplar wood, miscanthus and oilseed rape as feedstocks. ............................................................................... 9
Table 9: Input data for capital cost evaluation.............................................................................................. 10
Table 10: Input data for operating cost evaluation. ...................................................................................... 11
Table 11: Summary of economic analysis, estimated netback of bio-oil and COP of methanol. ................ 12
Table 12: Cost of transporting bio-oil from distributed pyrolysis plants to centralised 1350 MW BOIGMeOH system. ............................................................................................................................................... 13

Table 1: BOIG-MeOH process specification in Aspen simulation.

Compr = Compressor / turbine; Sep = Component separator; RGibbs = Gibbs reactor; REquil = Equilibrium reactor;
Flash2 = Two-outlet flash; Heater = Heater; Mixer = Stream mixer. [A] denotes ASU configuration while [E] denotes
electrolyser configuration.

Unit

ASPEN
Plus model

AIRCOMP
ASU
CO2COMP
CO2SEP
COMBGMIX
ELECTRO [E]
GASIFIER
GASTURB
GTCOMB
H2O2SEP
H2OREM
HE1
HE2
HE3
HE4 [A]
HE5 [A]
HRSG
SYNGCOMP
SYNGCOOL
SYNGEXP
SYNGMIX [E]
METHANOL
METSEP
WGS [A]

Compr
Sep
Compr
Sep
Mixer
RGibbs
RGibbs
Compr
REquil
Sep
Flash2
Heater
Heater
Heater
Heater
Heater
Heater
Compr
Heater
Compr
Mixer
REquil
Flash2
REquil

Outlet
temperature
(C)

Pressure (bar)

Other specification

14

Isentropic efficiency = 0.9

O2 split fraction = 1.0
Isentropic efficiency = 0.9
CO2 split fraction = 0.85[A], 0.99[E]

80

130
1132
1200

14
30
30
2
14

Isentropic efficiency = 0.9

O2 split fraction = 1.0

50[A], 100[E]
630
50[A], 35[E]
35[A], 40[E]
270
40
100
450[A], 100[E]

250
40
450

30
30
30[A], 80[E]
80[A], 24[E]
100
24
1.013
100
30
40
30
100
24
30

Isentropic efficiency = 0.9

Isentropic efficiency = 0.9

Table 2: Technology developers and capacities of the major process units.

Process Unit
Gasifier
Methanol synthesis
reactor
Electrolyser

Cryogenic ASU

Technology Developer
Shell, GE, E-Gas,
Koppers Totzek,
Destec, Prenflo, etc.
Lurgi, ICI, Air
Products, etc.
Proton Energy Systems,
Hydrogenics, Norsk
Hydro Electrolysers
AS, etc.
Air Products, Universal
Industrial Gases, etc.

Capacity for single unit

Type of process unit selected

up to 2000 t/d of coal

[30]

Entrained flow

5000 t/d of methanol [31]

Fixed bed, gas phase,

isothermal

10-60 Nm3/h of
hydrogen [32]

Pressurised alkaline
electrolysis process

90-820 t/d of oxygen

[33]

Oxygen production

Table 3: Validation of gasification model based on the proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oil, under given input and
operating conditions [34].

Gasifier operating condition

Temperature
1300C
Pressure
30 bar
Bio-oil
1 kmol/s (29.6 mol% oil and 70.4 mol% water/moisture)
Oxygen
0.57 kmol/s
Ultimate Analysis,

Proximate Analysis, as received (mass %)

moisture and ash free (mass %)

Fixed carbon and volatile matter

70

56

Moisture

30

37

Ash
LHV, as received (MJ/kg)

15.6

LHV, moisture and ash free (MJ/kg)

23.3

Product gas composition

Component
Mole fraction (%)
Reference Simulation
H2
29.4
29.1
H2O
26.3
26.7
CO
33.8
33.5
CO2
10.5
10.7
CH4
0.01
0.005

RSS = (Reference Simulation)2

0.09
0.19
0.10
0.03
2.3105
0.41

Table 4: Sensitivity analysis of operating conditions of WGS and CO2SEP on stoichiometric ratio of reactants in the methanol synthesis reactor.
Temperature
of WGS
(C)
200
250
300
350
400
450
500

Outlet of WGS
Components' molar flow rate
(kmol/s)
CO
CO2
H2
H2O
0.24
1.13
1.70
0.03
0.28
1.09
1.66
0.07
0.33
1.04
1.61
0.12
0.39
0.98
1.55
0.18
0.45
0.92
1.48
0.25
0.51
0.85
1.42
0.31
0.57
0.79
1.36
0.37

Outlet of CO2SEP
SN

0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41

H2/CO
7.06
5.95
4.87
3.97
3.28
2.77
2.38

CO/CO2

SN
99%
6.70
5.69
4.69
3.85
3.20
2.71
2.33

90%
4.49
4.00
3.47
2.99
2.58
2.24
1.98

85%
3.73
3.39
3.00
2.63
2.30
2.03
1.81

80%
3.16
2.91
2.62
2.33
2.07
1.85
1.66

75%
2.71
2.52
2.30
2.07
1.87
1.69
1.53

70%
2.35
2.21
2.03
1.86
1.69
1.54
1.41

99%
21.35
25.72
32.15
40.48
50.52
62.09
75.00

90%
2.13
2.57
3.22
4.05
5.05
6.21
7.50

85%
1.42
1.71
2.14
2.70
3.37
4.14
5.00

80%
1.07
1.29
1.61
2.02
2.53
3.10
3.75

75%
0.85
1.03
1.29
1.62
2.02
2.48
3.00

70%
0.71
0.86
1.07
1.35
1.68
2.07
2.50

Note: Outlet of WGS refers to stream 8 while outlet of CO2SEP refers to stream 12 in Figure 1.

Table 5: Data extracted from simulation and classification of heat utilisation and consumption for heat integration analysis. (a) ASU configuration. (b) Electrolyser configuration.
(a)
Heat Duty (kW)

Process Unit

Supply
Temperature
(C)

Target
Temperature
(C)

1 MW

675 MW

1350 MW

Heat
supply/demand

Heat utilisation and

consumption

GASIFIER
HE1
HE2
HE3
HE4
HE5
HRSG
METHANOL
SYNGCOOL
WGS

1133
25
450
130.8
190.4
169.9
737.2
250
1133
450

1133
630
50
35
270
40
100
250
450
450

0
16
82
4
7
32
236
63
117
27

11
11026
55317
2690
5007
21455
95307
42714
78949
17969

20
22052
110662
5381
10020
42944
231116
85502
157719
35924

neutral
demand
supply
supply
demand
supply
supply
supply
supply
supply

supplied from VHP steam

generate steam (MP)
generate hot water
supplied from VHP steam
generate hot water
generate steam (VHP)
generate steam (MP)
generate steam (VHP)
generate steam (MP)

Supply
Temperature
(C)
1133
130
188.5
250
745.3
250
1133

Target
Temperature
(C)
1133
630
35
40
100
250
100

Heat utilisation and

consumption
supplied from VHP steam
generate hot water
generate hot water
generate steam (VHP)
generate steam (MP)
generate steam (VHP)

(b)

Process Unit
GASIFIER
HE1
HE2
HE3
HRSG
METHANOL
SYNGCOOL

Heat Duty (kW)

1 MW

675 MW

1350 MW

Heat
supply/demand

0
14
3
51
241
112
213

11
9249
2262
34726
128448
75938
143824

20
18498
4529
69482
256915
151937
287475

neutral
demand
supply
supply
supply
supply
supply

Table 6: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration.
System mode

Once-through

System capacity

1 MW

675 MW

1350 MW

kg/s

kW

1350 MW

kW

kg/s

372.1

0.115

270346.8

82.6

581501.1

176.2

453225.3

144.4

SYNGCOOL (VHP, 100 bar)

111.1

0.030

78531.6

21.2

157433.6

42.5

157433.6

42.5

HRSG (VHP, 100 bar)

Heat recovery into steam generation

kW

Recycle (90%)
kg/s

kW

kg/s

118.5

0.032

95201.0

25.7

230779.1

62.3

74827.3

20.2

METHANOL (MP, 15 bar)

63.0

0.024

42714.0

16.0

85502.0

32.0

113178.0

42.3

WGS (MP, 15 bar)

27.0

0.010

17969.0

6.7

35924.0

13.4

35924.0

13.4

HE2 (MP, 15 bar)

52.5

0.019

35931.2

13.0

71862.4

26.0

71862.4

26.0

280.2

0.135

189732.2

91.4

379451.0

182.8

389632.6

187.6

23.0

0.013

16033.0

9.0

32072.0

18.0

32072.0

18.0

238.2

0.113

161262.0

76.5

322504.6

153.0

322504.6

153.0

19.0

0.009

12437.2

5.9

24874.4

11.8

35056.0

16.6

0.0

0.0

463.8

0.22

24031.2

11.4

53121.6

25.2

Heat supplied to process units using generated steam

HE1 and HE4
Sulfinol unit
Methanol distillation unit
Surplus LP steam into condensing turbine ST4
Net heat generation

65.4

44005.0

111664.6

65956.9

107.0

81922.0

192455.0

79628.0

GASTURB

101.0

77902.0

184411.0

60521.0

SYNGEXP

6.0

4020.0

8044.0

19107.0

35.0

35451.0

83771.0

47283.0

ST1

3.0

2364.0

4726.0

1750.0

ST2

23.0

27016.0

61873.0

31863.0

ST3

9.0

5970.0

11943.0

13670.0

ST4

0.0

101.0

5229.0

0.0

81.8

64037.1

149526.9

101955.9

ASU

22.8

15430.1

30860.9

30860.9

SYNGCOMP

13.0

8800.0

17613.0

34360.0

CO2COMP

3.0

2288.0

4576.0

4576.0

AIRCOMP

43.0

37519.0

96477.0

32159.0

Net power generation

60.2

53335.9

126699.1

24955.1

Production of methanol

388.0

Power generation from site

Power generation from steam turbine

Power requirement on site

0.019

262800.0

13.4

526000.0

26.3

739111.1

Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity)/bio-oil (%)

44.8

46.8

48.3

56.6

Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity+net heat)/bio-oil (%)

51.4

53.4

56.6

61.5

37.0

Table 7: Energy balance for different capacities of BOIG-MeOH system with electrolyser configuration.
System mode

Once-through

System capacity

1 MW

675 MW

1350 MW

kg/s

419.4

0.125

327831.8

96.4

659428.9

193.8

523994.5

161.7

SYNGCOOL (VHP, 100 bar)

185.2

0.050

125946.9

34.0

251893.8

68.0

251893.8

68.0

HRSG (VHP, 100 bar)

122.2

0.033

125946.9

34.0

255598.1

69.0

77790.7

21.0

METHANOL (MP, 15 bar)

112.0

0.042

75938.0

28.4

151937.0

56.8

194310.0

72.7

254.3

0.128

170932.6

85.7

342497.6

171.7

356621.2

178.4

14.0

0.014

9249.0

9.0

18498.0

18.0

18498.0

18.0

208.7

0.099

140392.8

66.6

281207.2

133.4

281207.2

133.4

31.6

0.015

21290.8

10.1

42792.4

20.3

56916.0

27.0

23.2

0.011

41316.8

19.6

84530.8

40.1

2677.2

1.27

Heat supplied to process units using generated steam

HE1
Sulfinol unit
Methanol distillation unit
Surplus LP steam into condensing turbine ST4
Net heat generation

105.7

Power generation from site

kg/s

kW

1350 MW

kW
Heat recovery into steam generation

kW

Recycle (90%)
kg/s

kW

kg/s

97100.1

196001.2

148096.2

114.0

108177.0

216382.0

86960.0

GASTURB

106.0

102539.0

205100.0

62921.0

SYNGEXP

8.0

5638.0

11282.0

24039.0

67.0

59574.0

120270.0

68196.0

ST1

6.0

3767.0

7534.0

4848.0

ST2

49.0

42057.0

84826.0

50611.0

ST3

7.0

4751.0

9501.0

12154.0

ST4

5.0

8999.0

18409.0

583.0

525.7

336613.9

673255.2

619246.2

393.7

265845.9

531702.2

531702.2

23.0

15826.0

31665.0

51622.0

CO2COMP

2.0

1344.0

2691.0

2691.0

AIRCOMP

43.0

53598.0

107197.0

33231.0

Net power generation

280.7

168862.9

336603.2

464090.2

Production of methanol

667.2

Power generation from steam turbine

Power requirement on site

ELECTRO
SYNGCOMP

0.033

450800.0

22.5

902000.0

45.1

1200778.0

Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity)/bio-oil (%)

38.7

41.8

41.9

54.6

Efficiency based on LHV, (methanol+electricity+net heat)/bio-oil (%)

49.2

56.2

56.4

65.5

60.0

Table 8: (a) Proximate and ultimate analyses of bio-oils from various sources. (b) Comparison of performance analysis of once-through,
1350 MW BOIG-MeOH system with ASU configuration, between poplar wood, miscanthus and oilseed rape as feedstocks.
(a)
Source of bio-oil

Heating value (MJ/kg)

Proximate Analysis (wt%)

Fixed Carbon and Volatiles

Ultimate Analysis (wt%)

Moisture

Poplar

23.3

70.0

30.0

56.0

7.0

37.0

Miscanthus

30.7

89.9

10.1

64.2

8.3

27.5

Oilseed Rape

35.7

90.5

9.5

77.5

12.0

10.5

(b)
Type of bio-oil

Poplar

Miscanthus

Net heat generation (MW)

111.7

23.5

Oilseed
Rape
17.7

Net power generation (MW)

126.7

116.3

117.8

Production of methanol (t/h)

94.7

141.6

144.5

LHV of methanol (MW)

Efficiency based on LHV,
(methanol+electricity)/bio-oil (%)
Efficiency based on LHV,
(methanol+electricity+net heat)/bio-oil (%)

526.0

786.9

802.9

48.3

66.9

68.2

56.6

68.6

69.5

Table 9: Input data for capital cost evaluation.

Direct Capital Cost
ISBL
Item No. Process unit
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
OSBL
Item No.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17

Gasifier
Water-gas shift reactor
Methanol reactor
Gas turbine
Steam turbine (inc. condenser)
HRSG
SYNGCOOL
Cryogenic ASU
Water electrolyser
Compressor and expander

Specification
Instrumentation and control
Buildings
Grid connections
Site preparation
Civil works (inc. waste water treatment)
Electronics
Piping
Total Direct Capital (TDC)
Indirect Capital Cost
Item No. Specification
18
Engineering
19
Contingency
20
Fees/overheads/profits
21
Start-up
Total Indirect capital (TIC)
Total Capital Costs

Base Cost
(million Euro)
25.5
40.59
7.7
6.55
3.81
2.87
2.87
19.6

Scale factor,
R
0.7
0.85
0.6
0.7
0.7
0.8
0.8
0.75

10.2

0.85

Base scale
400 MW HHV
15.6 Mmol CO+H2/h
87.5 t MeOH/h
25 MW
12.3 MW
47.5 t/h
47.5 t/h
24 t/h
825 Euro/kW
13.2 MW

Cost estimation (% of ISBL)

5.0
1.5
5.0
0.5
10.0
7.0
4.0
ISBL + OSBL
Cost estimation (% of TDC)
15
10
10
5
TDC + TIC

10

Table 10: Input data for operating cost evaluation.

Fixed Operating Cost
Item No.
Specification
1
Maintenance
2
Personnel
3
Laboratory costs
4
Supervision
5
Plant overheads
6
Capital Charges
7
Insurance
8
Local taxes
9
Royalties
Total Fixed Operating Cost (TFO)
Total Fixed Operating Cost per year
Variable Operating Cost
10
Natural gas
11
Electricity
12
Steam
Total Variable Operating Cost (TVO)
Direct Production Cost (DPC) per year
Miscellaneous
13
Sales expense, General overheads,
Research and development
Total Operating Costs Per Year

Cost Estimation
10% of TIC
0.595 million Euro/100 MW LHV
20% of (2)
20% of (2)
50% of (2)
10% of TIC
1% of TIC
2% of TIC
1% of TIC

0.021 Euro/kWh
0.080 Euro/kWh
10.5 Euro/t
TFO + TVO
30% of DPC
DPC + Miscellaneous

11

Table 11: Summary of economic analysis, estimated netback of bio-oil and COP of methanol.
Configuration
Capacity (MW LHV)

ASU
1

Mode

675

Electrolyser
1350

Once-through

1350

Recycle

675

1350

Once-through

1350
Recycle

Annualised capital charge (million Euro/y)

0.592

66.6

123.5

110.2

0.572

100.5

204.1

188.9

Annual operating cost (million Euro/y)

0.152

66.0

130.9

62.1

0.330

209.8

418.5

445.9

Value of products, exc. CCL (million Euro/y)

0.226

128.8

270.6

282.1

0.240

162.3

324.7

432.3

Value of products, inc. CCL (million Euro/y)

0.232

131.0

275.8

283.1

a. Electricity, without CCL

0.087

34.2

81.2

16.0

b. CCL for electricity

0.006

2.20

5.24

1.03

c. Methanol

0.140

94.6

189.4

266.1

0.240

162.3

324.7

432.3

1800

1214496

2430000

2430000

1800

1214496

2430000

2430000

Netback of bio-oil, exc. CCL (million Euro/y)

0.518

3.89

16.15

109.8

0.662

148.0

297.9

202.6

Netback of bio-oil, exc. CCL (Euro/t)

287.5

3.20

6.65

45.2

367.8

121.9

122.6

83.4

Netback of bio-oil, inc. CCL (million Euro/y)

0.512

1.69

21.4

110.8

0.671

155.0

311.8

221.8

Netback of bio-oil, inc. CCL (Euro/t)

284.4

1.39

8.80

45.6

372.8

127.6

128.3

91.3

Methanol production (t/y)

558.7

378400.0

757440.0

1064320.0

960.0

649152.4

1298880.0

1729086.4

Cost of bio-oil (million Euro/y)

0.135

91.1

182.3

182.3

0.135

91.1

182.3

182.3

COP of methanol, exc. CCL (million Euro/y)

0.792

189.6

355.5

338.6

1.04

401.4

804.9

817.1

COP of methanol, exc. CCL (Euro/t)

1418.0

501.0

469.3

318.1

1080.2

618.3

619.7

472.6

Bio-oil consumption (t/y)

COP of methanol, inc. CCL (million Euro/y)

0.787

187.4

350.2

337.5

1.05

408.4

818.8

836.3

COP of methanol, inc. CCL (Euro/t)

1408.0

495.2

462.4

317.1

1089.5

629.1

630.4

483.7

12

Table 12: Cost of transporting bio-oil from distributed pyrolysis plants to centralised 1350 MW BOIG-MeOH system.
Researcher
Method of transporting bio-oil
Maximum load / capacity
Analysis approach
Cost estimating
Fixed cost
Variable cost
Distance assumed
Bio-oil transportation cost (million Euro/y)
Bio-oil transportation cost (Euro/t)

Bridgwater et al., 2002 [13]

Tanker
Tanker
30.5 t
24.0 t
Distance rate
Distance rate
Shell UK
Linkman
4.29 Euro/t
0.039 Euro/t/km 0.043 Euro/t/km
100 km
100 km
19.9
10.4
8.19
4.28

Rogers and Brammer, 2009 [14]

Tanker
Tanker
44.0 t
44.0 t
Zone costing
Zone costing
Zone 1
Zone 6
0.66 Euro/GJ
0.11 Euro/GJ
0.99 Euro/GJ
0.11 Euro/GJ
96-224 km
0-11 km
64.2
8.6
26.42
3.54

Pootakham and Kumar, 2010 [20]

Tanker
Pipeline
3
60 m
560 m3/d
Distance rate
Distance rate
4.568 Euro/m3
0.04 Euro/m3/km
100 km
19.2
7.90

0.03384 Euro/m3
0.09608 Euro/m3/km
100 km
21.6
8.89

13